Gay Marriage and Homosexuality
Homosexuality is a hot topic that was bound to make it onto this cultural values blog at some point.
The Catholic Church’s position on homosexuality (which I support) is not popular in Madison, where I live. Madison is a very liberal– no, radical place. Home of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and numerous other radical groups.
I have delayed discussing homosexuality on my blog in the past. Primarily because I would rather focus on the “wooden beam in my own eye” before pointing out “the splinter in my brother’s eye.” Matthew 7:3 In other words, I am in no rush to discuss the sins of others. I am also no expert on this subject.
Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?
How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove that splinter from your eye,’ while the wooden beam is in your eye?
You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye. – Matthew 7:3
However, recent events in the news have brought the subject of homosexuality to the forefront of public discussion again, and perhaps it is time for me to weigh in with some thoughts. I will defer to experts on the subject and provide some useful references below for those who are interested in understanding why the preservation of traditional morality and of traditional marriage is so important to so many Americans.
Vice President Biden announced five days ago that he was ‘absolutely comfortable” with homosexual marriage, thus putting President Obama on the spot regarding Obama’s position on homosexuality.
Most recently, President Obama had said that his position on homosexual marriage , although he was opposed a few years ago, is “evolving.” So now President Obama was placed on the hot seat regarding this issue.
Three days ago, North Carolina approved and amendment banning gay marriage, and banning same-sex civil unions as well.
Yesterday, President Obama announced his personal support of gay marriage, after statements in the past opposing gay marriage. He attributed this change to his “evolving stance” on gay marriage.
The other two Presidential candidates (Mitt Romney and Ron Paul), mirroring the values of the majority of Americans, still stick to the traditional definition of marriage as one man- one woman. And no, the Republican primary is not yet over! (Updated post coming soon.)
Where Does America Stand on Gay Marriage?
Some data indicates majority support of gay marriage
Gallup results indicate that half of Americans support legal gay marriage.
The results seem to be hovering right around 50/50, within the margin of error, within the last two years.
CNN polls indicate that a slight majority of Americans support gay marriage (50% support, 48% oppose).
Some data indicates majority opposition to gay marriage
North Carolina’s passage of a state constitutional amendment legally preventing gay matrimony yesterday makes North Carolina the 30th state to implement a ban on same-sex marriage. 30 States out of 50 is 60%. This implies that 60% of America opposes gay marriage.
Also, Public Policy Polls (PPP) indicate a significant majority of Americans opposing gay marriage:
Americans within pretty much every demographic group continue to oppose gay marriage. Whites are against it 58/34, Hispanics 57/27, and African Americans 52/34. Women oppose it 55/35 and men do 59/31. Voters under 30 do 52/44, ones between 30 and 45 do 51/37, ones between 46 and 65 do 59/29 and those over 65 do 61/31.
PPP continues by discussing the disparity between their results and the results of other polls:
Obviously these poll results are very different from a CNN poll earlier this week that showed Americans moving in support of gay marriage, but disparities between live interviewer and the automated polling we do on this issue are not a new thing. Last fall our polling in Maine showed an anti-gay marriage measure passing by 4 points while live interviewer polls by Democracy Corps and Pan Atlantic SMS showed it failing by 9 and 11 points respectively. The measure did end up passing by a margin of 5.5 points.
Why the disparity between automated and live interviewer polls on gay marriage? Americans are still biased against gay people…but some of them know that’s wrong and they shouldn’t be. Because of that they’re more likely to tell their true feelings on an automated poll where there’s no social anxiety concern than to a live interviewer who they may be worried about the reaction of. — PPP
Without a national election on this issue, it is impossible to say whether the majority of Americans support or oppose gay marriage, because polling results are so mixed on this issue.
The only certain conclusion so far is that in 30 states, the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage.
- When different polling techniques are used (automated versus human interview), different results are obtained.
- When pre-election poll results are compared with actual election results, disparities surface.
- So election results become impossible to predict
Why the Disparity Between Polls and Election Results on Gay Marriage?
The PPP poll cited above proposes one reason for disparity between polls:
Americans are still biased against gay people…but some of them know that’s wrong and they shouldn’t be. Because of that they’re more likely to tell their true feelings on an automated poll where there’s no social anxiety concern than to a live interviewer who they may be worried about the reaction of.
I would propose a very different reason for disparity between polls, based on my own philosophy, which is probably not too unusual in America today:
I live in a very radical place (Madison, WI), where conservative thinkers are ridiculed, and it is politically incorrect to think or say anything conservative. A number of places in America have become that way.
Based on my local political activism, I have even received threatening phone calls in my home, from local small-time politicians calling me names!
Naturally, I have become cautious about baring my soul to random strangers who telephone my home. Guess what? I never participate in any poll. During this election season, Gallup has already telephoned me twice, and I declined to participate.
When radicals create a hostile atmosphere in which people are ridiculed, shouted at, and horns are blown in their ears for voicing conservative opinions, guess what? They hesitate to express conservative opinions. Particularly to strangers.
But when they enter a polling booth, where we presume (hopefully correctly) that our vote is protected and is private, and where expressing our opinion will have an important repercussion on the future of our nation, we vote our conscience.
So PPP and I agree that people may either not participate, or not be honest in polls, depending on the reaction they expect to get from those administering the poll. We might disagree about the reasons why people withhold their true beliefs, but we agree that people do not always reveal their true opinions.
Result of Not Divulging Beliefs in a Poll
If even one out of 10 conservatives has my philosophy of not participating in random polls, and approximately 60% of America is conservative, then 6% of people polled would be conservatives who refused to participate and were not counted in the survey.
You would have to add 6% conservative votes to the results of a poll to make it accurate. When Gallup says that Americans are 50/50 on gay marriage, you would have to say no, Americans must be 56/44 opposing gay marriage, because of the conservatives who hang up on Gallup like I did.
This is precisely what we see in the disparate data quoted above. When PPP uses automated polls which are less personal than Gallup’s human interviewers, they come closer to the conservative result. Conservatives may feel less threatened by an automated computer survey, and less likely to feel labeled by radical activists on some list of “bigots” who need to be targeted with Alinsky tactics.
In elections, unlike in telephone polls, complete anonymity (we hope) is guaranteed. Then, for elections, watch out, the conservatives will come out in full force, as they did in North Carolina three days ago on the marriage amendment.
The reason conservatives refrain from advertising their opinions in advance of an election is not because they know that’s wrong, as PPP would like to suggest. It’s precisely because they know that it’s right. They know that their opponents use dirty tactics, and thus it is foolish to advertise plans when you are fighting a cultural (or any) war. Incidentally, PPP’s suggestion that people alter their poll responses because they know that opposing gay marriage is wrong betrays PPP’s bias: the polling agency, PPP, is not neutral, but has attached moral judgment to the poll they are administering. What would any good scientist say about introducing that bias into a scientific study? PPP is not being professional in administering the poll. What results would they see if they utilized unbiased personnel in their polling? A further increase in conservativism?
When conservatives keep their opinions to themselves quietly, when they avoid participating in polls, avoid displaying yard signs, avoid big and noisy demonstrations and avoid political conversations socially, a false impression is often created. The false impression is that nobody thinks conservative thoughts or has conservative opinions.
Liberals are liberal with their complaints, liberal with their exaggerations, liberal with their demonstrations, and liberal with their demands. They are even liberal with their methods, adopting more and more extreme methods to demand what they want, until some are honking vuvuzelas in opponents’ ears.
The media, dominated by liberals, furthers this impression by promulgating liberal ideas and ridiculing conservative ideas.
This silence of conservatives leads people to believe that the majority opinion is a liberal one, and that the conservative philosophy has either become a minority philosophy, or is near extinction. However, as we can see from the marriage amendment votes in 30 states, conservatism is quite alive and kicking.
Now that We’ve Discussed What Americans Think-
What About Experts, Like Religious Leaders?
One Religious Leader in Madison Stuck to His Guns in Support of Traditional Marriage for over 50 years
Last month, an article on Rev. Pritchard of Madison, WI brought up the subject of gay marriage, and I put together my thoughts, which are quoted below.
The Wisconsin State Journal (WSJ, March 31, 2012) ran an article about Rev. Pritchard, who was a well-known and respected Madison religious leader for decades, and who is now 98 years old. He was pastor of Westminster Presbyterian Church in Madison for 21 years, until his removal by the denomination’s governing body over dissension among members over his leadership style (could this have been related to his conservative philosophy in Madison?). He then continued as pastor of Heritage Congregational Church for another 18 years until 1984. Rev. Pritchard decried X-rated bookstores, massage parlors, and nude dancing. Throughout his entire ministry in liberal Madison, Rev. Pritchard opposed same-sex marriage, and opposed pornography. Unusual for a religious leader in Madison, WI. Now, Rev. Pritchard, at 98 years, still preaches and teaches bible studies.
Accusations of Bigotry and Hatefulness
Pritchard still remains staunchly opposed to same-sex marriage, and in the online discussion following the WSJ article, one reader was prompted to attack him:
This man is a bigot and a hateful person. Age has not modified his grotesque distortion of Christ’s teachings.
My instinct was to defend this gentle teacher who had spent his whole life serving the spiritual needs of Madisonians with conviction. A 98-year-old man who said that he “tried to convey his love for all of humanity, even when he disagreed with a particular view or lifestyle; “I never wanted to be mean,” did not deserve the bigotry and hate label that liberals dispense so freely.
In Defense of Rev. Pritchard and other Religious Leaders
My online response to the angry reader has stood unchallenged now for over a month
(Note: Soon after publication of this article, my online response was deleted from the Wisconsin State Journal website, and the above link will now give you the message: No comments posted. No comments, indeed!)
Disagreement with you does not define bigotry and hatefulness.
I do not know Rev. Pritchard, but if he’s anything like all the other Rev.s I know, he does not hate anybody. He simply recognizes the dangers of the gay lifestyle for individuals and for society.
This is not bigotry, this is scientific fact. Look at the Center for Disease Control website.
The part that many fail to realize is that the “religious” people who oppose the gay lifestyle also oppose the promiscuous heterosexual lifestyle, and that they have no problem whatsoever with chaste homosexuals, same as no problem with chaste heterosexuals. To call us hateful because we disapprove of dangerous disease-spreading behavior is barking up the wrong tree.
Note also, that we simply disapprove. We do nothing about it, just disapprove. Where does anybody get the idea that they should be able to control what we approve/disapprove of? As they would say in the playground; “You’re not the boss of me.”
Regarding Christ’s approval/disapproval of the gay lifestyle, you will also find the majority of religious
experts agree that Christ would not encourage the promiscuity/party animal atmosphere of the gay lifestyle.
People need to differentiate between homosexuality, which is harmless, and the gay lifestyle, which implies a party animal atmosphere. The party animal atmosphere is damaging in either context; homosexual or heterosexual.
Basically, those who indulge in the party lifestyle are saying “I indulge in excess, I spread illness, I destroy my family and my relationships, and you all pay for the damages.”
What society can survive with that?
BTW, we “religious” people also disapprove of other excessive behaviors, too — overeating, excessive drinking, driving too fast, and many other forms of excess.
Irresponsible sexual excess, heterosexual or homosexual, belongs in the same category, and any society that publicly condones these is headed for trouble.
That’s the other important distinction: there is a difference between tolerating people’s mistakes, and publicly celebrating and encouraging those mistakes. I am overweight; people tolerate me, but they don’t have to approve, facilitate or celebrate my weight problem. The gay lifestyle falls into the same category. Religious people are happy to tolerate gays just as gays tolerate fat people. Just don’t try to force us to approve.
Religious Leaders Across the United States
The Catholic Church opposes gay marriage, as do numerous Churches and Church leaders. One comprehensive statement summarizing these beliefs and explaining the rationale behind these beliefs is the Manhattan Declaration.
The Manhattan Declaration is a declaration on justice and the common good, designed to protect and defend vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family – defending human life, marriage, and religious liberty.
Short Version of the Manhattan Declaration
Full Text of the Manhattan Declaration
The Manhattan Declaration
Signatories include over 57 Catholic Bishops, including Cardinal Dolan, as well as numerous other religious leaders – Baptists, Anglicans, Evangelicals, Presbyterians, Orthodox, Calvinists, Methodists, The Salvation Army, Hispanic Christian Leadership, Coalition of African-American Pastors, and National Religious Broadcasters, to name a few groups.
List of Religious Leaders signing the Declaration
Sign the declaration yourself
The Manhattan Declaration, probably the largest collection of Christian leaders and experts from across the board in America, has provided a variety of useful references for those who are interested in understanding why the preservation of traditional morality and of traditional marriage is so important to so many Americans:
Manhattan Declaration Responds as President Affirms Same-Sex Marriage:
10 links on Marriage from the Manhattan Declaration:
– What is Marriage?
– by Sherif Girgis, Robert George, and Ryan T. Anderson
– Why I’m Optimistic About Natural Marriage
– by Andrew Walker
– Why Is Marriage Important? (video)
– by John Piper
– Who Needs Marriage?
– by Chuck Colson
– Marriage in Society: The Generation Clash (pps. 47-57)
– by Matthew Lee Anderson
– What Would Bonhoeffer Do?
– by Eric Metaxas
– Dennis Prager Debates Perez Hilton on Same-Sex Marriage (Warning: YouTube contains objectionable content)
– Religion, Reason, and Same-Sex Marriage
– by Matthew J. Franck
– A Marriage in Full
– by Gary A. Anderson
– On Marriage and the Moral Limits of Human Sexuality
– by Metropolitan Jonah
One of the most noteworthy reactions to President Obama’s announcement of his support for gay marriage is, ironically, a poll result.
The Rasmussen Poll results dominate the Drudge Report Headline today:
Poll: Obama Trails Romney 7%
Obama 43%, Romney 50%.
If one dared to add 6% for conservatives who don’t participate in polls (as discussed above), that would make Obama 37%, Romney 56%. Of course, that is just my speculation.
Either way, a catastrophic backlash against Obama, almost overnight.
Religious Leaders React
President Obama’s spiritual advisor, the Rev. Joel Hunter, expressed “disappointment” with Obama’s gay marriage endorsement.
Cardinal Dolan, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, called President Obama’s remarks on marriage “deeply saddening.”
The Manhattan Declaration, a group of prominent Christian clergy, ministry leaders, and scholars, expressed their disappointment.
Watching the moral decline of our country causes me great concern. I believe the home and marriage is the foundation of our society and must be protected.
At 93, I never thought we would have to debate the definition of marriage,” says Mr. Graham in a full-page ad scheduled to run in 14 North Carolina newspapers. “The Bible is clear—God’s definition of marriage is between a man and a woman.
Pope Benedict did not comment directly, but two months ago he decried the “powerful gay marriage lobby in the United States.
Conservative news sources would be expected to criticize President Obama’s new position on gay marriage. But this time, even the liberal-dominated mass media took a significantly more cautious tone:
- The Washington Post stated that Obama’s position on gay marriage is just one more attempt to manipulate the gay vote, and that he had to be prodded into it by Biden.
- CNN implied that Obama made his gay marriage announcement based on opinion polls, not on his moral convictions.
- Associated Press ran an article on the world’s disappointment with Obama’s presidency. Obama’s support of gay marriage was not the focus of the article, but was mentioned.
- msnbc headline: Obama who? Gay marriage foes seek to extend gains.
- Fox News: House panel votes to ban same-sex marriages on US military bases.
“On the same day that President Barack Obama declared his support for same-sex marriage, the House Armed Services Committee backed measures prohibiting the practice on U.S. military bases….”
- Weekly Standard, in a article entitled ‘On By Behalf,’ challenged the President’s “evolution,” calling his account not credible, and accusing him of manipulating the military for political purposes.
So we’ve covered President Obama’s opinion on gay marriage, what America thinks, religious leaders’ opinions, and some media response to President Obama’s announcement of his personal feelings on gay marriage.
Now we can ask why do gays want marriage?
Why do conservatives oppose gay marriage?
But we define marriage first.
According to Merriam-Webster, marriage is “the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.” The use of the words “husband and wife”, implies mutual rights of sexual intimacy, life in common, and an enduring union. The union is expected to produce children, and generally does, even in 2012, after the advent of chemical contraception. Men and women want children, they are biologically designed and equipped to have children, and people usually get the most satisfaction in life from a rewarding family life, more so than from material possessions. It is the normal function of a man and woman to raise a family, as intended by nature (i.e. God, it’s designer).
Society grants a special status, to a husband and wife, with special privileges, in marriage. This is because marriage is “sacred,” both in the religious, and in the secular sense. Marriage is “sacred” in the religious sense, because a man and a woman cooperate with God in the creation of future human beings. Love is an essential component of that cooperation, and an essential element of what children learn, living in a nuclear family.
Marriage is “sacred” in the secular sense, because a man and a woman create the future members of the human race. The resulting “family” is the most successful unit for providing free and sacrificial love and labor, which perpetuates the human race, at no cost to the government. No other type of family unit has been as successful as the one-man, one-woman with children model which has dominated society for millennia.
Just as soldiers get special status and special privileges for courageous patriotic behavior, like receiving the purple heart, and just like those who go beyond the call of duty in service to their nation get knighted by the Queen, so also, parents get special status and special privileges for the function they perform in forming the future citizens of the world. The work of producing and molding future citizens is hard, the work is essential, and society is grateful to those who perform it.
Why do Gays Want Marriage?
(and DO Gays Want Marriage?)
First of all, many gays do not want marriage. There is dissension within the gay community on the desirability of marriage.
When they have the opportunity to marry, gays marry at a 10-fold lower frequency than heterosexuals, and gay divorces are twice to four times as frequent as heterosexual divorces (National Review Online). This could be an indication that a significant majority of gays do not want marriage.
But for those gays who do want marriage, let us continue the discussion…
- Gays are not biologically equipped to have children with each other, so this could not be the primary motivation for gay marriage.
- Feelings might be one motivation — the desire to express some specially tender feelings towards a person, to underscore the special nature of the relationship.
- Acceptance could be another motivation– the desire to have society give an official stamp of approval to their chosen lifestyle.
- Yet another motivation might be the financial benefits of marriage, such as entitlement to health insurance or to tax breaks.
- Gay marriage does not help to produce children and future citizens.
- Underscoring the special nature of a relationship by calling it a marriage has never been done for any other group, so this would be an unusual precedent which would open the door for further variations on the definition of a marriage. There is no mechanism for best friends, cousins, kindred spirits, or close colleagues to enter into “marriages” with special benefits, so it is not clear why persons of the same sex should be granted the right to call their relationship a “marriage” when it does not fulfill major aspects of the definition of marriage. There is the likelihood that other variations on marriage would soon be demanded by other groups.
- Acceptance is not something that can be regulated by law or demanded. Demanding that religious America approve of the gay lifestyle is just as nonsensical as demanding that radicals approve of conservatism. You cannot legislate what people think or believe. A minority especially, is in no position to demand the approval of the majority.
- The practical and financial benefits of marriage should not offered to people who are not likely to produce future citizens. To use the common divisive liberal economic terms, Gays are most often not in the 99%, but in the 1%, so why do they need an extra break? People who both work and have no children are often rolling in cash. Their cash is being used to augment their personal lifestyle, not to raise future citizens, as the cash of couples with children is being used.
Why do Conservatives Oppose Gay Marriage?
- The short answer is that homosexual relationships are morally wrong, something that all major religions have taught for thousands of years. Before somebody starts trashing religion as ignorant and dictatorial, let’s remind ourselves that 80% of America is religious. Americans follow not a blind, ignorant brand of religion, but a well-educated, thinking brand of religion which realizes that the God Who exists is brilliant and is loving. We realize that His mandates are not made to bind us, and to interfere with our pleasure, but to guide us for our own safety, towards a healthier and more stable life and society.
- Another reason conservatives oppose gay marriage is that a sexual relationship between members of the same sex is counter-intuitive, and unappealing to most people. It is contrary to common sense, and to biology. You cannot legislate what people feel, any more than you can legislate whether they like broccoli. Trying to force the majority of a population to act contrary to their common sense is an unrealistic demand.
- One of the most important reasons for opposing gay marriage is that children need both a mother and a father in the home for normal, undamaged development. The best environment for the raising of children is the home of a married husband and wife:
In every area of life, cognitive, emotional, social, developmental … at every phase of the life cycle … social evidence shows that there are measurable effects when children lack either a mother or a father. … The evidence is overwhelming. Mountains of evidence, collected over decades, show that children need both mothers and fathers.” – Jeffrey Satinover, M. D., Princeton University psychiatrist and member of the Department of Politics
Satinover argues that children need both a male and a female parent. He does not believe that homosexuals make bad parents—he says that being raised by a pair of homosexuals, one male and one female, would not be damaging to a child. But the absence of one gender, either father or mother is damaging.
Satinover states that when two homosexuals of one gender try to adopt a child, they are neglecting the needs of the child, they are putting themselves and their own comfort before that of the child, and are rendering themselves unfit as parents by that action.
- A recent study from the University of Texas gives more detail on why homosexual parenting is not equal to heterosexual marriage. The study was published in Social Science Research on March 12, 2012, and states that there are numerous social, emotional and relational differences between adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships and those of parents in a heterosexual marriage.
- Another reason to oppose gay activists is that they often go way beyond asking for tolerance. Today, they demand the teaching of their agenda to all children. In 2011, California mandated a pro-gay curriculum in the schools, with no option for parent opt-out.
Gays don’t want conservatives teaching traditional Judeo-Christian morality in schools, but they want the right to teach their own their brand of sexuality to the all children without exemption. There’s a pretty big double standard here.
Videos of teaching homosexuality to third graders from It’s Elementary, a pro-gay film showing the pro-gay curriculum in elementary schools in Massachusettees, New York and elsewhere.
Video of pro-homosexual presentation in a high school, where the speaker embarks on a vulgarity-laced rant against the Bible and its teachings on homosexuality, compelling 100 students to walk out, some of them in tears. Who is bullying who?
The latest legislation, California Senate Bill 1172, would make it a crime to counsel children not to be homosexual. Passing on the Judeo-Christian values of 80% of America to our children would be illegal. Not just for therapists, psychologists, and counselors, but also for parents.
This bears repetition: a crime for parents to counsel their children under 18 not to be homosexual.
Are gays still wondering why conservatives oppose gay marriage?
I would oppose Haagen Dazs ice cream if it was being shoved down my throat!
- Gay activism often offends people’s sensitivities. Heterosexual, family-oriented, and religious parades never feature provocative costumes, floats, and dancers with an overt public in-your-face sexuality. Gay parades do feature such attractions. The vast majority of Americans do not approve of the early sexualization of children. Sexuality is best left in the bedroom, and not on public display in front of children, who do not yet have the level of hormonal development to understand what is going on, nor the level of maturity to engage themselves in responsible sexual behavior. Gays have no right to engage in such public exhibitions in front of the majority of Americans, who find them morally offensive.
How can we publicly steer children toward sexual activity at early ages, when they are not mature enough to vote, to drive, or to drink alcohol? The early sexualization of children is dangerous, and gay activists have no right to hold children hostage in this struggle.
- Unfortunately, the gay lifestyle is statistically associated with a very high frequency with a hedonistic promiscuity, which leads to the spread of life-threatening infections, and to the misery of the entire gay community and of those who love them.
Society usually promotes the ideal:
We promote hard work, success, physical fitness, education, a healthy lifestyle, fidelity in marriage, and fiscal responsibility. We also promote marriage.
Nobody measures up in all areas, we all have our weak points. But we don’t celebrate our weak points, or demand that others compensate for our weak points. If I am overweight, I do not demand that children in school are encouraged to become overweight. Nor do I demand that you or the government (less directly, you) pay for my Haagen Dazs ice cream or for the second airline seat (God forbid) I should ever need!
So, too with homosexuality.
Homosexuals suffer a malfunction that does not equip them to participate in the biological production of a family, or in the participation in a marriage. Just like I cannot participate in the Olympics with my weight problem. Or I cannot become an airplane pilot with my imperfect vision.
Homosexuals should accept this limitation humbly and gracefully, and find happiness within that limitation, just as all handicapped people learn to live with their limitations.
Homosexuals have no right to demand that the rest of society pretend that they are normal, or to demand that we teach all our children that homosexuality is a desirable condition, or to demand the privilege of participating in marriage, for which they are not qualified.
Homosexuals should not adopt children, and if they already have children, they should make every attempt to find a living situation where relatives of the opposite sex are available to serve as role models for their children.
Above all, they should live a chaste life style as an example to their children, as widows and widowers have done throughout the ages.
Homosexuals, who constitute only about 1.7% of the United States population, cannot expect to dictate the morality and beliefs of 80% of (Christian) America, nor to reverse the moral standards that have been with us for millennia.
The initial desire of homosexuals to be tolerated like the rest of us (all imperfect) humans, like the fat, the lame (I fractured a bone in my foot last month!), and the old, was a reasonable goal.
But that goal has long ago been accomplished. The people I know do not think worse of homosexuals than they do of the fat, the lame, or the old (that’s me).
But gay activists have gone too far. Their demand that their handicap would be defined as the ideal and granted privileges, and that their (minority) definition of morality would be enforced on the entire population of the United States by law, casting all who practice Judeo-Christian values as criminals, is not going to fly.
Gay activists are in for some opposition now.
It has nothing to do with hate, or with homophobia, or with intolerance.
It has to do with our own freedom of religion and of thought, and our freedom to teach our values to our children.
In the U.S., you can’t shove anything down people’s throats by force– not even Haagen Dazs ice cream. No matter how great the LGBT community thinks their lifestyle is, they cannot force it on everyone else, with or without the support of President Obama. They are the 1.7%